A Question of Ethics

[Griffin NoName]

Genetically engineering 'ethical' babies is a moral obligation, says Oxford professor

Oh dear, my grandchildren weren't screened 

[Aggie]

It's akin to saying: "Implant this anti-violence chip in your head, all of you. It'll make for a better society." 

Only it's something that's done to you before your born, and changes who you'd otherwise be.  Permanently.

Ugh.  Eugenics all over again (although the article dismisses the connection).

He said that unlike the eugenics movements, which fell out of favour when it was adopted by the Nazis, the system would be voluntary and allow parents to choose the characteristics of their children.

"We're routinely screening embryos and foetuses for conditions such as cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome, and there's little public outcry," he said.

What isn't mentioned in the article is that selective abortion is explicitly part of the screening process.  For serious medical conditions, this is an ethical issue that has slid by with fairly little discussion. Take note: We are now selectively aborting people with Down's syndrome. Should we be? I sympathize with the difficulties a family is undertaking raising a Down's child, and suppose when it comes right down to it I support the right to decide whether this is something that a family is strong enough to take on, but I can in no way imagine that a society without Down's people would be a better place. 

----

Um, so exactly what percentage of potential people have 'personality flaws' and as such would be candidates for selective abortion? From what I've seen, it's damned near 100% - myself included. Humans have been somewhat evolutionarily stagnant for quite some time now and have depended on cultural evolution instead.... could we please try to evolve our culture a bit first? 

It seems to me that the barriers to constructive cultural evolution are largely matters of money and power, and those afraid of losing or sharing such would tend to be interested in reducing those pesky genetic predispositions to empathy and ethics in their children (I have no doubt that genetic engineering of children will be the domain of the rich far before anyone else).  I could see, however, why they might like a more friendly, docile populace to govern.  What's being proposed is IMHO the genetic domestication of the consumer into a passive 'sheep class', and the rise of a hyperintelligent, genetically dominant 'wolf class'. 

[Swatopluk]

Well, there are a few well-tested ways of simple brain surgery for both. Just decide which wire to cut. One disconnects the conscience, the other the aggression. There have been actual considerations by the military to do the former on (yet) volunteers*. The main objection was less ethical but fear that these guys would also have no qualms to point their weapons on their comrades (or worse, commanding officers).
Plato knew the problem and devoted an important section of his Politeia to it.

*or to recruit selectively those where the connection was 'naturally' disabled

[Griffin NoName]

Who would sit on the Selection Ethics Panel?

[Swatopluk]

Upstandig citizens of course (i.e. tax-cheaters that use some of the saved money to invest in legislators etc.)
</sarcasm>

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Yeah.... where do you draw the hypothetical line in the sand?

Don't these idiots realize that some of the most distinguished thinkers/artists/geniuses down through history, were also frequently sociopaths?  In that they pretty much wrote their own rules with regards to what is and what isn't acceptable behavior for themselves?

If all you wanted was a world full of mindless sheeple, duly doing their sheep-duties, then yeah... go ahead with your pogrom of human genetic engineering (for that's what it is).

...meh.

[Swatopluk]

It's not as if 'social' methods would not work. feudalism, despotism etc. have been around quite a bit longer than this equality stuff.
It has just become a wee bit more difficult since producing the stuff for modern creature comforts requires some use of brain and once that part has to be used on a regular base it becomes dangerous to the status quo.

[Roland Deschain]

This sort of thing would set yet another dangerous precedent. I can fully understand the need a parent feels to screen embryos for diseases such as susceptibility to breast cancer, Downs, etc, especially in a family with a long history of such disease, but this? No. There are already clinics able to screen for eye and hair colour, which I consider pretty frivolous, although the study on how to do this may well lead to other, more worthwhile advances, but screening for traits such as mentioned I cannot agree with.

Someone who is genetically pre-disposed to develop psychopathy will generally only become a psychopath if their upbringing is poor. The people most likely to benefit from this are those with enough money to have it done, as it will be expensive at first, so it won't generally keep down the number of psychopaths in society, although having a more empathic elite (you know what I mean by that) wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Just look at the numbers in finance, banking, and big business.

As said above, so many of our greatest artists, musicians, and scientists have had "issues" in one way or another, so have many of our revolutionists. Without these people, our lives would be so much less interesting. This is essentially an attempt to solve society's ills without facing up to society's ills. You cannot wave a magic wand and make it all go away, which is essentially what this will end up being.

I have no issue with the genetic causes of mental illness being found, as people with certain traits, such as the psychopathy mentioned above, can be found early and treated early. This will ensure proper support for the family, teaching them how to cope and hopefully stopping someone breaking down in their future life, which can lead to many problems. With the correct care and treatment, and sometimes without, people with even severe mental illness can function perfectly well in society at large. If the environmental factors which lead to severe (or negative) expression of their illness are effectively removed from their lives when growing up, we will do two things:-

1 - We will reduce the problems which may come as part and parcel of some mental illness, such as time spent with doctors, homelessness, crime, money spent on treatment, etc.

2 - We will go one hell of a long way towards helping the families of those with children with mental illness become better people.

That second one should be being done anyway, regardless of if the child has a susceptibility to mental illness, but then i've mentioned that several times before in other threads on the forum.

What worries me the most is if this sets a precedent towards some form of mandatory changes, all done in the name of the common good. I know the intention of Professor Julian Savulescu is most likely an honourable one, and I do understand where he is coming from, as mental illness is a big issue, but solving the issue this way is not necessarily the right thing to do.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I'm torn on the subject, on one end forcing genetic screening and/or abortions sounds terribly wrong, but OTOH I do think there are cases in which the idea of terminating a pregnancy due to genetic problems is a very reasonable endeavor.

Now getting into the specifics might merit it's own analysis for each case as the considerations are quite different, Dawn syndrome is a very different animal compared to psycho/sociopathy and the costs to society and the individual are quite different and in really different areas. The debate chamber is open at all times...

I agree that making it mandatory makes abuses incredibly easy, plus there is a portion of the population (the so-called 'pro-life' bunch) that would never ever agree with such policy, so there is precious little chance of something like that happening anytime soon.

Nevertheless genetic selection in conjunction with in-vitro fertilization not only are a reality but one used more and more everyday (see the current problems in India with gender selection already creating an enormous imbalance between males and females), so this is an issue that will have to be considered, debated and ethically resolved.

[Griffin NoName]

Dawn syndrome is a very different animal compared to psycho/sociopathy

From Urban Dictionary

1. Dawn's Syndrome

Identical to Down's syndrome, except the person is also morbidly obese and Catholic.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

[Sibling DavidH]

Two lovely young ladies at the Echo farm park trip yesterday; both good friends of ours.  The one on the left wove my camera strap and helps Cap'n B with craftwork.

They are both Downs people.  They are happy souls, they enjoy life and contribute a lot.  I'm just happy to socialise with them.

EDIT: I decided to move the pic to 'Toadfish Illuminations' where it's private.  Sorry to make it awkward.

[Roland Deschain]

It was a great picture, David. It becomes more difficult with Down's. Someone with the syndrome will be happy, as they do not know any differently. They will not have lived a life, say, in constant pain due to a physical abnormality, or lived "normally", then become like that. They are a lot of work for the parents involved at times, and for any other carers, but is it right to subject someone to that life, even if they won't know any better?

I honestly do not know the answer to that, but I can understand a couple deciding to abort a foetus if it will be born that way, just as I can understand a couple wanting to raise a child with Down's. My experiences with them has always been one of positivity and a sense of love friendship without needing anything in return. I do not envy someone having that choice to make.

[Griffin NoName]

I do not envy someone having that choice to make.

I think that's part of the problem. Suddenly we have huge choices to make where before there were none.

[Aggie]

Ayuh, and I don't see any significant cultural shifts to better equip us for the level and depth of choice we're presented with.  The outcomes are more positive, generally, but the choices are more difficult and may carry negative consequences simply from having to make a difficult choice.